Replies

Maica: We have reduced all nominees to a fight over their political leanings. As Mark Steyn said, we are getting a system of rule by nine parliamentarians. I do not think we will like who gets on the court in the future, when libs are in the driver's seat.

Cboldt: As if we like Ginsberg. Sheesh. It's about time the GOP learns to oppose judicial nominees who indicate a willingness to legislate from the bench. The fact that the GOP didn't do that with Ginsberg is a black eye for the GOP.

Sorry, I missed all the objections to HM that she would legislate from the bench.

My first objection was that her judicial philosophy was unknown and maybe unknowable. My further objections were that she did not appear to be a strict constructionist, based on her own words, and that she is an intellectual middleweight, also based on the way she expressed herself.

I also objected to the pick on the grounds that it represented, at least to many, a failure of President Bush to fulfill a campaign promise to nominate strict constrctionsists. ANd, from that disappointment came a division in the GOP, of some undetermined size. I also objected to the principle of "going stealth" with conservatism. Meekness does not advance a cause.

But the point I was trying to make in our dialog was against the GOP Senate, which has in the past agreed to pass a nominee who they strongly suspected would legislate from the bench, "Ginsberg." I think the past practice of the GOP in that regard is despicable.

One pro-Miers argument was that a strong conservative CANNOT WIN confirmation in the Senate. This argument was advanced by many posters, referring to the gang of 14, and in many cases supplying a list of Senators who would see to it the nomination could not be confirmed.

Did you subsrcribe to that line of argument?